DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/18/2024. These drawings are accepted for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 15 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. With respect to claims 15 and 17, Applicants’ recitation indicates some other substance being detected in lieu of the recitation of claims 1 and 16. This contradicts the independent claims and accordingly does not provide definite scope (as the claims are open-endedly directed to “other substance” without qualification, should Applicant define the meets and bounds of this limitation, express recitation as to the specification portion which teaches the amended version is required). Regarding claim 7, recitation of a least about 10MHz is unclear as there is no lower/upper bound.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franceschini et al (US 2019/0261869).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 16, Franceschini et al disclose and teach a system and method of autocorrelation during photon detection by a photodetector wherein detection indications are delivered at two separate temporal times for detection of photons and sampled to generate presence indication and autocorrelation of the outputs indicating detection (0007, claim 45, 0051-0056, 0064) The detector is a photodetector (Claim 45), can be setup as a SPAD (0118), the generation of the autocorrelated signals is based on multiple pairs of first and second digitized signals, wherein the detector includes many photodetectors configured to detect the photons and presence indications are based off detection at each detector (0007, 0110-0111, 0119-0127) , wherein the generation of 0V with no photon and voltages in a set range indicates detection (0112-0115).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 10-13, Franceschini et al disclose the sampling occurs over a time period (0064, 0077, 0080, 0087), the frequency of sampling can be above the 10MHz range (0119-0120, 50MHz (20ns)), the connection can include a USB connection (0077, 0109) or wireless communication (0069), and the processing can include cloud-based processing (0109, 0064).
Regarding claims 14-15 and 17, Franceschini et al disclose the detector including more than one photodetector and more than one presence indicator (0117-0120), the detection of NIR datapoints (0003), and whereby the processor generates autocorrelation indications based on the detection(s) once digitized (0007, 0118-0127).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franceschini et al (US 2019/0261869) in view of Valle et al (US 2021/0290064).
With respect to instant claims 9 and 18, Franceschini et al fails to expressly disclose or teach the use of binary indications in the sampling, nor the compression of the digital presence data, and disclosed voltage range for detection. Attention is hereby directed to the teaching reference to Valle et al which expressly discloses and teaches the use of binary indications in the sampling (0107), as well as the compression of the digital presence data (0050, element 208). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the teachings of Valle et al for the compression and binary indication of detections with the system of Franceschini et al for the purpose of allowing for correlated photon counting at high resolution and frequencies (0003-0004, Valle).
With respect to claim 6, Franceschini et al discloses the detection voltage but fails to expressly disclose the prescribed range of voltage indicators recited. Attention is directed to Valle et al which expressly discloses a count/time to voltage circuit (claim 2, 15, 20). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide baseline and indication voltages at the detection times (see claims 15-17, Valle) in a desired range, as the set voltage range is a result effective variable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes reference to Parker (US 2025/0169726) which discloses an NIR spectroscopy method with autocorrelation functionality and high resolution detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M. LAMPRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-3250. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL LAMPRECHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights